Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I compliment everybody involved with this report. Its recommendations are all reasonable and important. Many would say more is needed and there are areas where the report has not gone and perhaps it should have gone. This is an evolving process as we become more aware of the trauma those who report sexual violence suffer and we are all aware we must always work to ensure people are not traumatised again by the system that is supposed to do justice in the end to all parties. We must work hard against anything that causes people not to have recourse to the justice system when they have been assaulted.

As Senator Ward and others have said, we must balance key ideas in all of this and that is why the report is as capable as it is. We can say the integrity of the criminal justice process is contingent on the gathering of forensic evidence and on how that forensic evidence is gathered and preserved.We can say at the same time that it is only when victims are properly supported that they have the courage and resilience to endure the rigours of an adversarial criminal justice process. The care and support of victims, particularly vulnerable victims, should begin at the earliest opportunity in the aftermath of rape or sexual assault. In that context, it is unacceptable that there are only six specialist sexual assault treatment units in the State. Services in Limerick are provided on an ad hocbasis. Given that the victims of rape and sexual assault are frequently under 18 years of age, there needs to be significant investment in ensuring that services are more accessible and age appropriate. It is particularly important that services are available in large urban areas. There needs to be greater investment in suitably trained and qualified health professionals who can provide specialist and timely care to those who need assistance in the aftermath of rape and sexual assault.

The HSE needs to consider how to raise public awareness of the available sexual assault treatment unit services. Consideration should be given to a sensitive and appropriate public information campaign so that victims are aware that services actually exist. Insofar as it is possible, given the constraints of the current public health emergency, increased financial and human resources need to be targeted and applied to the delivery of specialist health services for the victims of rape and sexual assault. The geographical anomalies in the absence of services in significant tracts of the State and in many large urban areas need to be given urgent consideration. Young victims of rape and sexual assault may not have the financial means or physical ability to seek services at a special treatment unit, particularly if attendance at same would involve a significant journey on public transport.

I want to draw attention to recent correspondence, which many of us have received, from a particularly courageous person, Councillor Deirdre Donnelly. In her experience of these issues she discovered that "the legal system is so unbelievably unsupportive of victims". She is disappointed that, despite recommendations in the O'Malley report, a victim’s counselling records may be used as part of the accused defence. She asks whether it is right that a victim’s medical records should be available in sexual offence or rape trials. She compares that with the situation in other trials. She also gets down to practical issues, some of which are touched on by this report. These include, for example, in the context of the arrangements to be made for ingress and egress from a courtroom, the seating of a person who was reporting trauma, sexual abuse or violence and the accused person. She mentions that even at the stage of the investigation process, a “Do Not Disturb” sign should be on the door of a meeting room in a Garda station where a victim is making a complaint. That would seem to be fairly self-evident. Yet, that was not her experience.

The other issue, which I raised a number of years ago, is a need for some kind of track-my-crime process, whereby those who report crime would have a means of being kept properly informed of what is going on. I still do not think we are there. The moves were not made. I recall at the time the then Minister, Frances Fitzgerald, said it might be the way to go. However, the moves were not made that were trialed in other areas, for example, in various parts of Britain. Certainly, it was Councillor Donnelly’s experience that a long period passed where she had only occasional correspondence. In the end, she discovered from the Office of the Director of Public Prosections, DPP, that her case was not going to go to trial. There was, therefore, a lack of information and a lack of a sense of right to information, and there was the delay before a decision. There was, of course, a need to have somebody to explain why a decision has been made. This can be done while at the same time respecting the presumption of innocence and the rights of an accused person, which must be fully respected. However, it has to be possible to communicate with a person who is reporting a serious crime, particularly one as intimate and as difficult as a crime in the sexual domain. It has to be possible to find a way to keep those people briefed as to what is going on, without in some way confounding, obstructing or impacting on the fairness of the overall process. I acknowledge Councillor Donnelly’s courageous sharing of her experience, which we need to reflect on.

This is an area that is so fraught that when one has a contrarian point to make, one can feel almost nervous of doing so. I am in friendly disagreement with some of what Senator Pauline O’Reilly, who is now in the Chair, said. We need to have a deeper and broader debate on the consent issue. Consent training is important. It is important to have it at an early age. However, an excessive focus on consent to the exclusion of a wider reflection of what is going on in our society is like having a black and white TV instead of a colour TV. We are only going to get part of the picture. It will only be partial in how it educates people about their responsibilities to each other. Let us remember what consent classes are. They seek to train people in what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a context where the law already makes that clear. I worry that the unique focus on consent is a desire to create some kind of a secular morality in a context where the moral landscape has changed. I am fully in favour, by the way, of talking about these issues in RSE classes, but it would be wrong to suggest that somehow the role of faith and of faith schools are somehow a problem. We need a both-and approach.

If we had more of the gospel of “love your neighbour” and what that means, which is part of our great tradition in schools, there would be less of a need for consent classes. We can have both. We can talk to people about morality, particularly in the context of Christian schools. Only last night I saw a wonderful presentation by Coláiste an Spioraid Naoimh Presentation school in Cork, to mark Presentation Day. It did not touch on these fraught issues, but it was quite obvious from the way those students talk about their experience, that they are being educated within a mentality of loving your neighbour and not just looking out for yourself. We need to draw on the best of our tradition as well. I am worried about suggesting that there should be consent classes at primary school. I question that aspect of the report and I would like to see what people mean by it. Parents have a right to be the primary educators in these important issues. Schools will know that the children are at different stages of maturity. It is important that the focus is always on the "love your neighbour" dimension, on treating people with respect, and on respecting physical distance with other people’s bodies. There are ways of doing it. However, if it is an overly sexualised programme that has been advanced for a political purpose, then that no longer focuses on the future welfare of possible victims as the highest value. All I am saying is that we need to open up a discussion about that. There will be a bit of right and there will be a bit of learning on all sides, but I would be careful of hanging my hat on consent and saying that it is the only thing that we need. It is a thin Band-Aid to a problem. If there is a wider values problem in society, and I am touching on the abuse of alcohol and on the abuse of social mores where people think they can just use each other, none of those issues can be dealt with through consent. We need consent and much more if we are going to have a society where men and women respect each other's rights and where there will be less violation of people's rights in this most terrible of areas.